Allowed

Velayudhan Nair v. Parvathy @ Thankamma

Kerala HC12 Mar 2019RSA/1027/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal filed by a father against a decree in a partition suit. The suit arose from the death of his wife and a brother who died issueless. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of lower courts that the Wills establishing the exclusivity of certain properties were genuine and properly executed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed, the decree was set aside, and the parties were restored to their original status ante-decree.

Velayudhan Nair Vs Parvathy @ Thankamma — Partition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

RSA.No. 1027 of 2004

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 314/2001 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR DATED 03-04-2004

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 3007/1999 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,THRISSUR DATED 22-06-2001

¶8

APPELLANT:

¶9

VELAYUDHAN NAIR

¶10

S/O.PATTARIPPATTU VADAKOOTU, PARUKUTTYAMMA,, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 PARVATHY @ THANKAMMA D/O.PARUKUTTYAMMA, PATTARIPATTU VADAKOOTTU,, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶14

2 RAJI@ RAJASREE D/O.PARVATHYAMMA PATTARIPPATTU VADAKOOTTU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE-, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶15

3 KRISHNADAS S/O.PARVATHYAMMA PATARIPATTU VADAKOOTTU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶16

4 MINI D/O.PARVATHIYAMMA PATTARIPPATTU VADAKOTTU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM,, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶17

RSA.No. 1027 of 2004

¶18

-2-

¶19

5 MEERA D/O.PARVATHYAMMA PATTARIPPATTU VADAKKOOTTU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM,, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶20

6 JAYANTHI D/O.PARVATHIAMMA PATTARIPATTU VADAKOOTTU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM,, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶21

7 NEETHA D/O.PARAVATHYAMMA PATTARIPATTU VADAKOOTTU, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM,, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶22

BY ADVS. SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.K.S.BABU

¶23

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

RSA.No. 1027 of 2004

¶25

-3-

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The defeated plaintiff both in the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court came up with this appeal, aggrieved by the decree and judgment in a suit for partition. The properties were originally allotted to the share of parukuttyamma and her son and daughter-sankarankutty and Thankamma Alias Parvathy, who is the 1^st defendant in the suit. The plaintiff is another brother of Sankarankutty. The 1^st defendant had given a separate property under Ext.A1 partition as her exclusive property. The case of plaintiff is that on the death of Parukuttyamma in the year 1985 and her brother Shankaran kutty in the year 1995 who died unmarried and issueless, she become of the sharer of the property being one of the legal heir of

¶28

Parukutty- amma and Shankarkutty nair. Hence the suit.

¶29

RSA.No. 1027 of 2004

¶30

-4-

¶31

The suit was contested by the 1^st defendant daughter and the remaining defendants based on two Wills. Ext B1 is the registered Will dated 16.11.1981, left out by Parukuttyamma and it was proved through DW2- one of the attesting witness. Ext.B2 is the unregistered Will left out by Shankarankutty Nair, in which legatives are 4^th and 5^th defendant. It was proved through Ext.Dw3 – one of the attesting witness.

¶32

Both the Trial Court and the 1^st Appellate

¶33

Court found concurrently that both the Will are genuine and proved as mandatory under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It was also established that it was executed in compliance of requirement as mandated under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Concurrent finding rendered by both the Trial

¶34

Court and the 1^st Appellate Court based on the factual issues cannot be interfered. No

¶35

substantial question of law, much less any

¶36

RSA.No. 1027 of 2004

¶37

-5-

¶38

question of law brought to the notice of this Court and hence appeal fails deserves only dismissal, I do so but without cost.

SD/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

Velayudhan Nair v. Parvathy @ Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velayudhan Nair v. Parvathy @ Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Eswari Thankachy Vs K.Ramabhadran Thampi @ K.R.Thampi

Stephenson Vs Yesudasan

Swaminathan Nadar-Antony Das Vs Krishnan Nadar-Ramachandran Nadar

Sabeena Vs K.N.Rajagopal

Madhavi Vs Raghavan Pillai (Deleted)

K.Vijayamma Vs K.S.Bindhu